Re: Ideals

Hi Doug,

Let's start with your definition of "true" as in true scientist and true
religion. My first issue is in whether or not you believe that this use of
the word true is yours alone, or if you are advocating others use it. I ask
this because you say that a true scientist would not work on a harmful item,
and you define true scientist as one who realizes the overall purpose of
life.

My second issue is that you realize that this is not a Baha'i view, but
rather the view of one Baha'i, you.

The issues I have cascade from there. As I asked in another response, what
is the overall purpose of life in your opinion? Most people seem to
recognize that such a purpose is individual, that we each must find our own
life's purpose, but that cannot be your meaning since all of science and
religion cannot be the same, if that is your meaning.

So you must have another meaning. And in that case, since you are silent at
this point, I can only guess. A quick google of purpose of life finds many
answers, most of which deal with advancing civilization, which as you know
is my answer.

So if we run with that, if we decide that Doug believe true religion and
true science is that which advances civilization I am not sure we have made
progress. Surely there are no members of religions or scientists who
believe their work, beliefs or life will not aid the advance of
civilization. I think it would be the rare person indeed who believes their
beliefs and work do not help civilization. So with that definition nearly
everyone who has a religion has a true religion, and everyone who works in
science has true science. The only exceptions would be those people who
think their work and/or their religion is useless or evil (which I doubt is
very many people at all).

So now we have further complicated matters by saying that Doug does not
believe scientists would work on products that are harmful. Does that mean
pesticides? Although they have a good purpose, wouldn't they be mis-used if
they had a bad purpose? It seems to me just about anything could be used
for a bad purpose or a good purpose. If you or I lived in Israel or
Palestine today I bet we would be hoping our protectors, whichever side they
are on, have a good defense for me and my family. And I think good
scientists worked on those good defenses.

Do you get where I am going here, Doug? Perhaps you would like to explain,
again, what makes un-true science.

--Kent










"Douglas McAdam" <douglasmcadam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6fc05aa836cb5e572d8d47c54dd9129d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
History will show that our sciences have evolved as we have become more
spiritualized and civilized.

True science and true religion are those that realize the overall purpose
of life.

I read an article a long time ago, I think maybe by William Hatcher but
I'm not sure. In it was stated how young our sciences are and if I
remember correctly it said that 75% of all scientists who ever lived were
alive at that time and 75% of those were in the USA of which 50% were
working for defense and thus he felt they were scientistic.

I do not believe a true scientist would work for organizations that
produce harmful products. And I have already heard the argument that
science merely discovers or invents things but has no control over how
they get utilized.

doug

On Jul 12, 2006, at 12:50 PM, Kent Johnson wrote:

Hi Doug,

" I do not feel we can claim to have as yet a true religion and
true science. Both are evolving according to the spiritual
transformation of souls."

My understanding is that both science and religion are attempts at
understanding reality. It is the same reality, they just focus on
different
aspects of reality. I have trouble saying "true science" since all
knowledge
is inaccurate and incomplete, and "true religion" since spiritual
teachings
are relative. I prefer to speak about the relationship of truth to
knowledge.

"True science" as a phrase means nothing to me. Truth means a lot, as
does
science, but when you put them together I only wonder why.

But I believe you are mistaken to say that science is evolving according
to
spiritual transformation. It is true to say that human knowledge is
related
to our spirituality, but not science. Science is not concerned with
spirit
unless and until it can be detected physically.

--Kent



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: NBC VENTING
    ... > belief in 2005 then I will happily condemn religion as superstitious ... Weird Science on the Religious Right ... "Condoms are full of holes" ... scientists at Columbia University showed that by saying appropriate ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Dover decision Redux
    ... endorsement of religion. ... mere re-labeling of creationism, ... position, ID is not science. ... scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • The Quran and Modern Science
    ... Based upon extracts from the video The Truth. ... RELIGION and SCIENCE have always been considered to be twin sisters by Islam ... Professor Moore presented his findings to scientists at ...
    (soc.culture.pakistan)
  • The Quran and Modern Science
    ... Based upon extracts from the video The Truth. ... RELIGION and SCIENCE have always been considered to be twin sisters by Islam ... Professor Moore presented his findings to scientists at ...
    (soc.culture.iranian)
  • Re: Challenge to evolutionists
    ... acceleration of the universe was found? ... "Science any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical ... this is no more than religion. ... "Scientists maintain that scientific investigation must adhere to the ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading